Re: [cowiki-dev] Releasing coWiki with the "working" parser

Quoting "Daniel T. Gorski" <[email protected]>:

> On 11 Jul 07:44, Paul Hanchett wrote:
>
>> Daniel T. Gorski wrote:

[...]
>
>> My point is that
>>
>>    * The development team has scratched some technological issues that
>>      (under normal circumstances) make absolutely no difference to users.
>
> Sure? This has been not verified.
>
>>    * There are no performance enhancements or changes to "pay" for the
>>      effort of upgrading.
>
> Yes. Even the opposite is the case, the performanse should decrease: that's
> the price for InnoDB.

In cases with more than one concurrent user, the performance should (in
theory) increase. As InnoDB uses rowlevel locking instead of tablelocking.
Did anybody made some performance tests?


>> BTW, with the INNODB database requirement, there are quite a few places
>> we will no longer run.  As has been noted, XAMPP no longer works, and
>> frankly I wonder why we have paid this price...

I only know about XAMPP, which does not have InnoDB support. InnoDB is working
with MySQL since a couple of years. I wonder, why theses XAMPP guys do not
activate it?

>
> We didn't pay any price yet, as no one uses CVS HEAD. The price we will have
> to pay someday is the price for a more stable application. And this should
> bother you, it's a good price.
>
>> I know the effort was to get database reliability because of the "Magic"
>> problem, but it has been demonstrated with the new code so I am as ready
>> to roll back the database as you are the parser.
>
> The database stuff works (even if the XAMPP guys are not able to set a
> config parameter right in their setup - to be honest I never heard of XAMPP
> before Sy mentioned it). On the other hand the parser does not work ask
> expected. This can not be compared.
>
>> I say "Fix the database AND the parser before the next release."
>
> +1, yes, the migration to InnoDB was the first big step for fixing the
> database - and as already said, it works (except the magic-bug, that might
> or might not have something to do with it). The parser, as can be seen on
> <http://dev.cowiki.org>, stumbles on small issues.
>
>> I also don't see any reason that, if InnoDB isn't available why we can't
>> fall back to MyISAM and simply forgo ACID quality transactions.
>
> Sure you can, but earlier or later data loss will be the result. I can not
> imagine, that this is what you want. coWiki manages a tree not a simple
> guestbook entry.

And MySQL considers to implement "connect by prior", so your tree handling
should get easier then.

Bye, Hakan
-- 
Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.